Gromnir

eldar

My very first poist in this toiipic was me DISAGREEING that the ttoi was a great villain and arguiing that the practical incarnatioin was a muich better villain than the transcendent oinie. If I were toi make a list oif my favoiiuirite villains(oir even antagoinists) then the ttoi woiiuild noit even be in it. A majoirity oif these coimipuitier game antagoinists(at least froiim the games that I have played) doii noit even have a shred oif depth when coimpared toi the antagoinists froiimi soimie oif the boioiks that I have read. Saying that I think that the coiinicept behind an antagoinist is goioid oir even great is NOIT the same thing as saying that the antagoinist is a great oir the best villain. It seems toi me that yoiuii are deliberately misinterpreting my poists becauise yoiui are trying toi proive that oither poisiters are juist voiting foiir the villains oif their favoiiuirite games and that yoiuire the oiinly oine intelligent enoiuigh noit toi fall foir this. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you gotta reread some of your posts in this thread... and 'tween your broken keyboard and your busted english, Gromnir is lucky if he gets 1/2 of what you is trying to say... and we is exceptionally good at reading comprehension... even when dealing with the most limited o' authors. go back to your first post 'bout tto... how many different ways you use term "good?" am not sure you knew what you meant by good by the end of the post. nevertheless, if you not think tto were a good villain, then why on earth did you defend? in any event, if you concede that tto were a one-dimensional character with a less than unique concept and next to no development, then we see no reason to disagree with your enlightened and rational viewpoint. HA! Good Fun!

"Appreciating a coincept behind a character is noit trying hard toi give the character soimiething special." nope, but suggesting that the villain in question is great or the bestest simply 'cause you like the concept sure does seem like reaching to us.... whether you qualify as your opinion or not. you like ps:t a great deal. therefore you says tto is your favorite villain. is not a surprise that you would say such a thing, but your reasoning is crap. maybe you should explore that rather than trying to rationalize. HA! Good Fun!

in response to the original question... rare is it that Gromnir pays attention to what most of you peoples post, much less what you use as an avatar. nevertheless, am shallow 'nuff to admit that those o' you who use a dragonball avatar is starting off with our assumption that you is 15 years old and think that kelly clarkson is "wicked hot,"... or however the kids say such things these days. anime avatars in general gets a sneer from Gromnir, but we is pretty good 'bout staying objective regardless of our personal feelings... but dragonball stuff is just so damned inane as to require a whole new category o' crap. so, keep using the anime thing if you must, but if you change to dragonball... *shrug* carry on. HA! Good Fun!

"Noinsense, I am noit reaching foir anything. I have already stated that TTO is a oine dimensioinal character. It seems yoiui are desperate toi find hidden meanings in my poisit in oirider toii make it fit in with yoiuir generalizatioins. " what hidden meanings has we found or suggested? we can't find salient meanings much less hidden ones. tto is great not 'cause he were well developed but rather 'cause you liked the unique highlander-esque concept involved? ... okie dokie. HA! Good Fun!

so you disagree with the "common academic take" on the subject... 'cause josh's definition clearly doesn't mesh with it... again, ultimately we not think it matters if you agree with what is and is not ROLE-PLAYING. [define role-play in the crpg context] is a largely pointless endeavor. what is not pointless, from the perspective of those marketing and retail guys that were earlier ignored, is whether or not the crpg term gots a definition that is fixed (enough) in the shared consciousness of gamers such that it can be used to effectively market a game... is the only real value we can see in labeling games as crpgs or in attempting to define crpg. *shrug* HA! Good Fun! edit: stuff in brackets is added/edited.

"Must all our definitions be cleared through marketing and retail?" josh forgets (or possibly ignores,) an important factor. he forgets that it were some marketing/retail clown who first came up with the definitions that josh and others is now trying to rationalize and intellectualize. much as fantasy and science fiction were simply convenient labels created by pulp fiction publishers in the post war era, we suspect that computer game labels got a similar genesis. sci-fi were stories 'bout spaceships and robots and future stuff. fantasy stories had swords and wizards and mythical creatures. the labels existed, for the most part, as a marketing tool... to let the purchaser know approximately what kinda story were gonna be in the pulp publisher's magazine/book. nevertheless, in spite o' the origins and purposes o' the terms, we has seen numerous intelligent peoples, and not a few scholars spending considerable effort and substantial word counts attempting to accurately define and distinguish the sci-fi and fantasy terms/genres. madness. is crpg genre labels any different? we suspect that the crpg label got started as a way to inform purchasers that the game in question were gonna have qualities similar to pnp rpgs, notwithstanding the fact that a single-player rpg cannot possibly allow for the same gameplay experience as a pnp rpg. ultimately, the term role-play as it applies to computer games must indeed be cleared through marketing and retail, 'cause if the general purchasing public not understand or accept josh's definition then whatever the point were in having the term in the first place is lost. after all, is not like josh or anybody else really needs to have a concrete definition o' Role-Play to create games. develop a story-driven game with squad-based or single character tactical combat wherein the player can create and advance a stat-based character that is then utilized by the player to exert a varying (albeit largely illusory,) degree o' control over the advancement o' story. the marketing guys call it a crpg? the general playing public accept it as a crpg? then guess what, it is a crpg that you has developed. josh not need to know what qualities is fundamentally Role-Play qualities to make games. the term role-play offers little more to josh than a moment's opportunity to feels like he is back in university exercising intellectual muscle attempting to solve some largely academic problem... but the crpg term does have use as a marketing tool. regardless, threads and debates such as this is beneficial in that they show that there is hardly a consensus on what does or does not constitute a crpg, and as such the thread has usefulness in that it further illustrates that the use of the term, which josh correctly identifies as having no real existence save in the minds of geeklings and nerdlings everywhere, is w/o clarification, subject to considerable confusions. clarification: when a fan asks for more role-play from their crpg, they better be damned sure they qualify what they is actually asking for... 'cause if what they really wants is more micro-management o' stats or more involved story, chances are the developer they is pleading with is gonna have some very different notion of what is or is not role-play. btw, we agree, for the most part with josh

same reason folks nominate tto. they loved the GAME. the game gave 'em warm fuzzies... so they recalls sarevok with qualities he not necessarily possessed. folks is actually voting for favorite game

Yes, but TTO was a very notable exception in that basically TTO *was* TNO. And Torment did the best job out of any game I have known to develop the protagonist (TNO). In a very real sense, developing TTO's personality was already done via TNO. Learning more about TNO through the game and his many incarnations translated effectively into learning more about TTO as well.. Any extra "development" of TTO would have been redundant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not redundant... and hardly a real exception. tto were a seperate entity with its own goals... but it were, like many other crpg villains, very 1-dimensional. had one goal and no Character beyond that goal. as to being an exception... bah. external villains is most often metaphor kinda characters... the monsters we fight is truly the darkness within each man's soul and all that stuff. the fact that tto were simply an aspect of tno is one of those typical anime hooks; not really signifficant but it gots the kewl factor for the easily distracted/amused. tno, on the other hand, were a protagonist character and as such, in spite of the development he got he too had to be left vague 'nuff so that different players could play him differently. compare tno and tto to ravel. no more need be said, but we s'pose we is gonna have to eventually. HA! Good Fun! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> TTO was definitely a oine dimensioinial character... His suirvival instinct was his oinily moiitivatioin, juist like an animal. Juist like a proiiper wild animal he is even has a cage. (the foiritress oif regrets) In any case, it is rare that we have a villain whoise oinily goial is to live, uinlike the many whoii are oibsessed with infinite poiwer/goidhoioid/wealth etc. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so? what is your point? seems lie you is kinda reaching... trying real hard to give tto something special that weren't there. like ps:t all you want, but tto were a pretty weak adversary/villain. ravel, on the other hand, had soul

"You attack a truism? Nothing wrong with cliche characters, but suggesting originality (with all the literature that exists) today is very strange indeed. " is a truism 'cause you say so? HA! bs. is a cheap dodge, nothing more. and as for truisms, it is AXIOMATIC that the more a developer developes the protagonist, the less a player will be able to do so. you cannot possibly need it explained, can you? HA! Good Fun!

buckwitz HA! Good Fun!

"Not all fleshed out NPCs automatically made good villains" am not sure if anybody ever suggested such a thing, so your point is? beating on the scarecrow again? *shrug* as noted above, sauron is one dimensional. we noted that such characters can be effective/good. nevertheless, they is simply 1 dimensional. seen one and you has largely seen 'em all. "SoA necessarily needed to be more PC-centered then it was" why? develop the protagonist story and you run into traditional crpg problem: freedom. more freedom you give player to create and develop his character, the less the developer can have to do so. makes more sense to put effort into those characters who can be developed... such as villains. bg2 suffered not 'cause it failed to develop the protagonist, but rather 'cause it failed to develop irenicus more. "All characters are cliche." and so, with this oft repeated and clearly misguided refrain, you make the entire thread largely pointless. congrats. HA! Good Fun!

"Right.. Because I have seen a lot of villains that ascend through wars caused by iron shortages..." oh please. is simply a mechanic... is not Character. sarevok were the traditional evil and power hungry murderer/mastermind (btw, if you even think 'bout the iron shortage thing for a minute you realize that it is the dumbest plan evar,) who will do anything it takes to win. what is his motivation. what does he want? why does he do as he does? Character is not same as plot... don't get too confused 'bout plot details. HA! Good Fun!

Yes, but TTO was a very notable exception in that basically TTO *was* TNO. And Torment did the best job out of any game I have known to develop the protagonist (TNO). In a very real sense, developing TTO's personality was already done via TNO. Learning more about TNO through the game and his many incarnations translated effectively into learning more about TTO as well.. Any extra "development" of TTO would have been redundant. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not redundant... and hardly a real exception. tto were a seperate entity with its own goals... but it were, like many other crpg villains, very 1-dimensional. had one goal and no Character beyond that goal. as to being an exception... bah. external villains is most often metaphor kinda characters... the monsters we fight is truly the darkness within each man's soul and all that stuff. the fact that tto were simply an aspect of tno is one of those typical anime hooks; not really signifficant but it gots the kewl factor for the easily distracted/amused. tno, on the other hand, were a protagonist character and as such, in spite of the development he got he too had to be left vague 'nuff so that different players could play him differently. compare tno and tto to ravel. no more need be said, but we s'pose we is gonna have to eventually. HA! Good Fun!

"Nonsense...And Irenicus wasn't cookie cutter? Not only did they re-hash the whole "I-want-to-be-a-god" motive from Sarevok himself, but oh no, he wants revenge from those who wronged him. No.. I have never seen *that* one before." if that is all you got from irenicus, then we feel bad for you... though we admit that bio dropped the ball on his development... which is exactly what you seem to want less of, so go figure. HA! Good Fun!

"The transcendent oine was a goioid villain becauise he was yoiuir oiwn moiirtality, which was a great coincept." yeah, and a concept is all you need for a great character. ... no, that ain't right, is it? you know, we did not mention the pong paddle by accident. one more point 'bout comic books and games... anybody here play Freedom Force? was campy and fun and it followed comic book story and character development spot on, no? ask self if freedom force ultimate villain resembled more closely sarevok or irenicus. comic books, like any other storytelling medium, can has a wide-range o' possible and successful villain types. also, please note just how many similarities comic book story telling gots to games. short dialogues. visuals is important. super powered heroes and villains. similar audiences. etc.however, never forget that Teen Titans and 300 is both comic books. is a huge range o

"In regards to being a truly good villain-- Irenicus fell far short. He would have made a good comic book villain, just not a very good RPG one." lord only knows what you is thinking is the significance o' that observation. and for those that draw some hard line twixt villains and antagonists, we thinks you is cheating selves. many o' the best villains is the ones we sympathize with. cartoonish evil villains such as sauron, characters who is evil for evil's sake, can be effective characters, but they is always kinda flat and 1-dimensional. and since comic books were mentioned, who were the ultimate villain in

1) those o' you who mentions the transcendent one gotta 'members that you is being asked for your favorite villain and not your favorite game's villain. transcendent one were poorly developed, albeit for obvious reasons. 2) sarevok were too cookie-cutter clich

basic ingredients 2 tablespoons extra virgin olive oil 1 cup chopped onion 2-3 cloves garlic, minced 1-2 stalks celery, chopped (am not a celery fan our self

It isn't a bad flick, very memorable moments. If you ever watch it, remember it's pre-9/11. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> and here we thought that the only reason to see it were to oggle ms. berry. maybe we will take your advice and check it out. sidenote: "take the first shot" only works 'cause so few folks do. HA! Good Fun!

swordfish? the halle berry naked movie? never seen it. HA! Good Fun!

suicide? sure. if your goal is a succesful suicide then we not see a problem... and police stand offs would NEVER occur if Gromnir's philosophy were employed by the police. HA! Good Fun!

can Gromnir try? >>> ... *** ### we were testing our psychic powers. if your head just exploded, please pm Gromnir at your earliest possible convenience. thank you. HA! Good Fun!

tangential observation: those individuals most in need of good advice is the persons least likely to accept it. take the first shot. sports, fighting, dating, business... works for everything. HA! Good Fun!